Seattle cop charged in SD shooting, carrying concealed pistiol without a permit

Status
Not open for further replies.
I won't comment on the charges or the incident from a potential SD POV because I don't know enough.

However, going to a biker bar where real-deal motorcycle clubs hang out is about the silliest thing one who was tactically aware could do, provided one wanted to avoid potential deadly-force encounters.
 
provided one wanted to avoid potential deadly-force encounters.

I'm guessing they weren't exactly trying to avoid such encounters. Seems like they rode a couple thousand miles to find them.

Here in the real world, groups of off-duty cops of a certain variety have been known to start serious bar brawls, inflict injuries, and then walk away, since they're cops. Most cops wouldn't do this, but there are some that would, and do. Seems like these cops have their own motorcycle gang -- fine with me, but why should they be automatically treated differently from anyone else in Sturgis? People in Sturgis have all sorts of day jobs, and by and large they wouldn't matter in court.

I'm hoping SD doesn't give them any special privileges because they're cops in Seattle. In Sturgis, they were the same as everybody else -- and it seems this guy went looking for this. I doubt that he couldn't find any other place to get a beer.
 
That's an interesting take on LEOSA issued out of the Denver ATF office. I'd hate to be the guy tasked with fielding the justifications.

"Bob, Senator So and So's Office on line one. Congressman So and SO's Office is on two. FLEOA's Office of Chief Council is on line three. FOPs on four." And so on...
 
Last edited:
ArmedBear stated:
and it seems this guy went looking for this.
There are some differing accounts coming out; many witnesses have apparently said that the Hell's Angels instigated the fight. It seems that perhaps three of the Iron Pigs were sporting their colors, which in that particular establishment in Sturgis is not allowed -- in order to prevent incidents such as the one the occurred. The Hell's Angels (at least a few of them) reportedly took offense to the Iron Pigs violating this "courtesy." Of course, the HA members knew full well the make-up of the Iron Pigs, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that Smith was identified, and certainly he would have been of great interest to HA, given his past history with them ...

As an aside, it's interesting to note that South Dakota does recognize Washington state CPLs, presumably at least the non-cop members of the Iron Pigs were carrying with CPLs. Is SD included in the majority of states that forbid CPL/CHL holders to carry in drinking establishments?

Finally, ArmedBear asked
but why should they be automatically treated differently from anyone else in Sturgis? People in Sturgis have all sorts of day jobs, and by and large they wouldn't matter in court.
I'm in total agreement here (and I am a member of the law enforcement community who just may know a few Iron Pigs members). Most of the LEO bikers I know ride for fun, not to go into bars and start brawls, especially with outlaw biker gangs ... But if the SPD guys screwed up, justice should be served, and the same justice any other citizen would face. But hey, can we all just wait for the process to go on, and not make the same old presumptious statements that the players will get off just because they're cops?

Oh, and for those that seem to believe HR 218 should just go away ... wasn't it all that long ago that many on this forum actually thought LEOSA might pave the way for full nationwide reciprocity for citizen concealed carry?
 
Is SD included in the majority of states that forbid CPL/CHL holders to carry in drinking establishments?

From post #5:

South Dakota Codified Laws 23-7-8.1

The holder of a permit may carry a concealed pistol anywhere in South Dakota except in any licensed on-sale malt beverage or alcoholic beverage establishment that derives over one-half of its total income from the sale of malt or alcoholic beverages.
 
But hey, can we all just wait for the process to go on, and not make the same old presumptious statements that the players will get off just because they're cops?

I agree.

If I sounded like I presumed they'd get off because they're cops, I didn't. It sounds like others here think they should, though.

And it really does happen.

It does seem, though, that any other group of bikers wouldn't immediately get the benefit of the doubt.

Let's see how this turns out. I doubt the outlaw bikers in question are innocent, and that wasn't my point either, if I gave that impression. I just don't think that groups of off-duty LEOs should get the official okay to go far and wide, looking for fights. If that's what they did, then they're no different from the guys they fought with.

And as I said, while I don't think many cops would do this, there are some who do. It's at least possible that these guys were the "1 percenters" in the police community.

The courts should sort that out. No free rides.
 
It seems that the Seattle officer's story didn't agree with the image on video tape.

No way. That never happens.

If I am not mistaken, you can get 20 years for lying to a government official, including any law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties. And a lot of people do get those kind of sentences. So, bye-bye, SPD guy. See you in 20 years.
 
So basically the BATFE is saying that LEOSA is not law and Congress passed a bill that does nothing?

Wow :confused:
 
Sadly this will be ammo for the antis along the lines of "well if a police officer can't behave in a bar then a regular citizen cannot either."
 
Wanna-be bikers mixing it up with the real thing is always a recipe for disaster. I don't care if you're a cop or accountant; if you're not living that lifestyle then to pretend you are and go face to face with Hell's Angels is just plain stupid.
 
Wanna-be bikers mixing it up with the real thing

Well, that, too is an assumption.

Some cops can be genuine thugs, when with a group of their peers and off duty, i.e. a gang for all intents and purposes.

Wearing their colors in said bar could mean one of two things:

1. They're wannabes and they don't have a clue.
2. They were looking for a fight because they figured that, as a group, they could win, and it would be fun.

Cops should be able to go have fun with friends and family when they're off duty. However, there are a few things you ought to know you're signing up not to do, when you become a cop. Drinking and brawling with outlaw bikers (and any other sort of outlaws) is one of these things.

Now, I've been to a cop's party, with a bunch of other cops, and he had a nice little indoor marijuana farm going -- and I'm talking about a LOT more than someone could smoke, not just personal use, here. That, too, is something they signed up not to do, but that didn't seem to matter to any of them.

Secondhand, I've heard stories of brawls started by thuggish gangs of cops around here -- guess who wasn't charged with anything when it was over, and guess who was blackmailed not to. That didn't happen to me, but I had little reason to disbelieve those who came to work with bruises.

San Diego has had some high-profile cop aggression problems over the years, like an off-duty cop from Coronado (an island near San Diego) following Charger player Steve Foley across two jurisdictions after leaving his own, in his private car, then shooting him in his driveway, and another cop pulling over then bludgeoning Cara Knott, a 20-year-old SDSU student to death.

There is simply no, I repeat NO, reason to assume that these cops were in the right, here.

I don't think anyone should be condemned in the media, but automatic exoneration isn't any better. Let's see what the courts find.
 
Last edited:
If he is found guilty or the assault it is common to be charged with illegally having the gun because he used it improperly. Not sure about a charge for not having a permit though. It happens all the time, if you hit someone with a baseball bat and cause injury the bat now becomes an illegal weapon whereas it was not prior to the assault.
 
Another good point.

If you go looking for a fight, I think that all bets are off: it's generally illegal to carry a concealed weapon with the intent of assaulting someone, permit or no.
 
"Wanna-be bikers mixing it up with the real thing."

Bikers are people who... ride motorcycles. Some are tough; most are not. Some are of the outlaw variety; most are not. Some are of the law enforcement variety; most are not. Some are in clubs; most are not.

Now, if your definition of biker only extends to motorcycle riding tough guys belonging to in clubs... I'd say both parties fit that particular bill. I'd also say that there's a world of difference, still, and I imagine so would they.
 
SPD has little real internal affairs structure- there was a series about it in the local paper last year. They automatically sweep officer misconduct under the rug. "Handled as a training issue" is code for "would have gotten him fired in a better run department" IMHO.

In my limited experience, outlaw bikers will respect anyone who respects them but won't back down or take, uh, disrespect from anyone. Sounds like these "iron pigs" got on the wrong side of that equation.
 
Bikers are people who... ride motorcycles. Some are tough; most are not. Some are of the outlaw variety; most are not. Some are of the law enforcement variety; most are not. Some are in clubs; most are not.

My point was to differentiate between bikers who live the lifestyle that has been around for over forty years, and those that get a Harley, some ink, and now they're a biker. In the past ten years the "biker look" has been as trendy as an Escalade with 22" wheels. So my point is that there are real bikers and then there are poseurs. Weekend bikers that during the week are accountants, lawyers, working class guys, and... cops.
 
SPD has little real internal affairs structure- there was a series about it in the local paper last year. They automatically sweep officer misconduct under the rug. "Handled as a training issue" is code for "would have gotten him fired in a better run department" IMHO.

Indeed. Overall Seattle Police have a lot of good officers. But there are a few bad ones and for some reason the department refuses to deal with them. There have been a number of incidents involving the same officers and they just continue to have problems. Why they don't fire them is beyond me. They are continuing to damage the reputation of the department and I would think that in a city like Seattle the public image would be very important to the department.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top